Rowling to kill off Harry?

[14th Dragon]

I haven't read the series, nor do I intend to. But I have heard interviews and other musings from JKR that indicates that Harry (or most of the other major players) won't survive the end of the series.

She may be doing this so that the storyline isn't killed by being lisenced to other authors (Like Kevin Anderson) who think that just because they've read the books, they can write fiction in the same "world"

Like killing off anyone would do any good. You could nuke hogwarts, burn every broom, bury every charecter under three tons of lava and guess what, they can still go back and make new books. They will make prequils, new classes, reduxs, lost tales and all that other crap to make more cash.

[denstorebog]

"Young Voldemort"

[MeanMrMustard]

I think the series should end with Harry denouncing witchcraft and being born again as a Christian.

[Lyanna Stark]

I have read all six, and if anything, they get worse. I wasn't going to read the last one, but I sacrificed myself in the name of better literature and told a friend that I'd read HBP if she'd read AGoT. If you want, I'll tear apart the rest. I'm starting to wonder if you actually read my post--I made several references to the other books.

I'm not laboring under any false assumption that Dumbledore is all-knowing or omnipotent, and I know what happen to him. It's just that anyone with an IQ over 80 could come up with a better defense. Keep in mind, Dumbledore is supposed to be one of the most brilliant wizards ever.

Well, you are, as far as I can see, only referecing events in the first book.

Go ahead and "rip the others apart" if you want. I haven't read anything by Eddings in 15 years, but I am sure people will help me ppoint out that in no way possible is Rowling a worse author than Eddings.

I'm not sure what you find so idiotic about Dumbledore's defence in book 1. Or do you mean in later books? Yes, it's slightly contrived, but Harry Potter is a book mainly aimed at children and young adults, but also good enough for adults to enjoy.

Eddings suffers from the same sort of character shortcomings as Robert Jordan does to a large degree. His characters have a set collection of personality traits and they do not develop on the least during the books.

Rowling, on the other hand, has definitely not shied away from having her characters develop. Harry, for instance, is VERY different in book 1, book 4 and book 6, wouldn't you agree? That's called character development. People may agree or disagree on the quality of her writing, but she does include character development, both in Harry and in other supporting characters, like Ginny Weasley and Neville Longbottom.

Rowling includes grey characters, like Snape and Barty crouch Sr. Not to mention Umbridge, who is not on Voldemort's side, but still not a nice person. Same goes for the Durseley's, and to a lesser degree Draco Malfoy. Eddings does not write any grey characters.

Harry may be a powerful wizard, and the same can be said for Dumbledore, yet they all have their failings. Also clearly illustrated.

How often does Belgarion fail? Or Belgarath?

Rowling kills off main characters. Eddings does not kill off any main characters.

Rowling includes topics like racism, socal class and misogyny in her books. Eddings is more the other way around. The murgos are inherently evil, apart from the king, who turns out to be half westerner after all. And his mum. And his fiancee, who just seems so much like silk's fiancee they could be twins. Or the same person, cause they indulge in the same overbearing manner.

To be frank, Eddings' female characters are all extremely traditional and depressingly stereotypical.

Plus Rowling does not have any "pre-destined marriages" for which we should be very, very happy. On the contrary, single middle ages/older women are often portrayed as something completely normal and valid in Rowling's world, like for instance McGonagall, Olympe from Beuxbatons or Madame Rosmerta. The only single woman with a valid existence in the Belgaroad is the widowed queen, and she's only there cause her husband dies. She still has the traditional role of mother. Not to mention the traditional role of being MUCH younger than her late husband. Totally un-charming.

Harry also doesn't have to kill a God.

Also, in the follow-up to the Belgariad, let's have a really dumb villain. Let's have her evil plan be to go to a remote island where some doofus is going to make a CHOICE between the heroes and the villain. Let's have the villain believe she is certainly going to win this 'choice' .. even though the chooser has for some reason decided to become CAMP BUDDIES with the heroes. Furthermore, let's, during the climax scene, have the villain constantly NAG AND BULLY the ONE PERSON who's going to choose whether the villain gains ultimate supremacy or a life as a kitchen rag between the stars.

God, I had forgotten about that, or just sort of subconsciously removed the memory.

Yeah, dumbest intrigue ever.

The only thing that really made an impression on me from the second Belgarion series was that he talked to pig farmers somewhere. Or maybe he talked to the pigs. Highlight of that series.

[naz]

i've long believed that Harry must die.

I feel the same. She's been leading toward this end for 3-4 books now. She's not exactly a complex writer, so the development toward this outcome has been fairly transparent. I'm not trashing Rowling, btw - just pointing out that her plotlines are relatively easy to figure out. Like this last book. I think it's pretty obvious that

SPOILER: just in case

Dumbledore is not dead and that Snape is not 'evil'

[Mercury Poisoning]

Well, you are, as far as I can see, only referecing events in the first book.

I referenced the "accio" and killing curse spells in my evaluation. Which, take note, don't appear until Book IV.

Go ahead and "rip the others apart" if you want. I haven't read anything by Eddings in 15 years, but I am sure people will help me ppoint out that in no way possible is Rowling a worse author than Eddings.

Note that at no time did I say David Eddings was a better author than J.K. Rowling. I just said he was more internally consistent, which *is* kind of sad.

I'm not sure what you find so idiotic about Dumbledore's defence in book 1.

He makes it possible for anybody vaguely competent to get to the stone. See my first post in this thread.

Yes, it's slightly contrived, but Harry Potter is a book mainly aimed at children and young adults, but also good enough for adults to enjoy.

David Eddings and Eragon are also aimed at children. Speaking as a high school student, how any reasonably intelligent adult can derive any pleasure from it is a mystery to me.

Eddings suffers from the same sort of character shortcomings as Robert Jordan does to a large degree. His characters have a set collection of personality traits and they do not develop on the least during the books.

Agreed.

Rowling, on the other hand, has definitely not shied away from having her characters develop. Harry, for instance, is VERY different in book 1, book 4 and book 6, wouldn't you agree? That's called character development. People may agree or disagree on the quality of her writing, but she does include character development, both in Harry and in other supporting characters, like Ginny Weasley and Neville Longbottom.

Kids change as they grow older. Having character development doesn't automatically qualify you as competent.

Rowling includes grey characters, like Snape and Barty crouch Sr. Not to mention Umbridge, who is not on Voldemort's side, but still not a nice person. Same goes for the Durseley's, and to a lesser degree Draco Malfoy.

Just because a character is not on Voldemort's side doesn't mean they're automatically grey. Tell me, do Umbridge and the Dursleys have any redeeming qualities?

Eddings does not write any grey characters.

The Angarak kings are all fairly grey, if you ask me (except for that crazy Murgo dude in the Belgariad.)

Harry may be a powerful wizard, and the same can be said for Dumbledore, yet they all have their failings. Also clearly illustrated.

How often does Belgarion fail? Or Belgarath?

When has Harry ever failed? All I'll give you is that he comes off slightly scathed. Agreed on Belgarion/Belgarion.

Rowling kills off main characters. Eddings does not kill off any main characters.

The only main characters she has killed off are Sirius and Dumbledore (Cedric doesn't count), and both of their deaths are questionable.

Rowling includes topics like racism, socal class and misogyny in her books. Eddings is more the other way around. The murgos are inherently evil, apart from the king, who turns out to be half westerner after all. And his mum. And his fiancee, who just seems so much like silk's fiancee they could be twins. Or the same person, cause they indulge in the same overbearing manner.

Agreed, except I have no recollection of Rowling going up against misogyny. I'd be grateful if you could refresh my memory. I do remember Eddings bringing up the problems of social classes, though, what with those two serfs whose names I can't remember. I'll get back to you on this one. But once again, including social issues doesn't make one competent.

To be frank, Eddings' female characters are all extremely traditional and depressingly stereotypical.To be frank, Eddings' female characters are all extremely traditional and depressingly stereotypical.

Plus Rowling does not have any "pre-destined marriages" for which we should be very, very happy. On the contrary, single middle ages/older women are often portrayed as something completely normal and valid in Rowling's world, like for instance McGonagall, Olympe from Beuxbatons or Madame Rosmerta. The only single woman with a valid existence in the Belgaroad is the widowed queen, and she's only there cause her husband dies. She still has the traditional role of mother. Not to mention the traditional role of being MUCH younger than her late husband. Totally un-charming.

I don't know, the running gag about bathing was pretty funny...

Just joking, and yes, you're right.

Harry also doesn't have to kill a God.

He *does* have to kill the most powerful evil guy in the world, though. It amounts to the same thing.

[davos]

I'm torn about the possiblity of Harry dieing. There is much in the story that would suggest that this is the direction it is headed. At the same time this is in a sense a coming of age story and to have the protaganist die at the end, just when he has reached adulthood seems rather unfulfilling. I think there are ways that both directions could make sense and its up to JKR to make the one she chooses work in terms of storytelling.

As for who dies she has indicated that 2 additional characters are doing to die that she didn't originally intend and that one character that she expected to die is not going to. This does not mean that only 2 characters die in book 7. In fact many more could not make it. I think there are few characters that are legitmately safe, though a strong case can be made for Hermione. Likewise Voldemort is a sure to end the series well and perminately dead. I also tend to think that whatever the truth about Snape he is a likely goner. Other than that I think its wide open about who lives and dies.

I'm very curious what happens to Draco. Lives? Dies? More good or more bad? His story in book 6 seems to leave open a lot of different possiblities.

[Lyanna Stark]

David Eddings and Eragon are also aimed at children. Speaking as a high school student, how any reasonably intelligent adult can derive any pleasure from it is a mystery to me.

Heh. I am 29 years old with a MSc degree, which of course doesn't necessarily prove I am smarter or dumber than anyone else, but it does at least prove I can hold my own in most cases.

Kids change as they grow older. Having character development doesn't automatically qualify you as competent

No, but it is far better than a total lack thereof.

Just because a character is not on Voldemort's side doesn't mean they're automatically grey. Tell me, do Umbridge and the Dursleys have any redeeming qualities?

I would say that Petunia has some redeeming qualities in her, perhaps yet to be seen. Dudley is a spoilt kid, who could have turned out better with a better upbringing.

Also, Umbridge works for the Ministry who are opposed to Voldemort. Hence, she can't be seen as 100% evil, although she despises Harry.

The Angarak kings are all fairly grey, if you ask me (except for that crazy Murgo dude in the Belgariad.)

Can't recall that they were grey at all. What are you thinking of here?

When has Harry ever failed? All I'll give you is that he comes off slightly scathed.

Potions? He has ruined quidditch matches for his team. If he hadn't had help in the Triwizard tournament, he would not have got past the first dragon, this was painfully obvious. Sirius died when he was near. Dumbledore died when he was near. Umbridge's fall was Hermione's idea, not his. The whole raid at the Ministry was basically a failure.

The only main characters she has killed off are Sirius and Dumbledore (Cedric doesn't count), and both of their deaths are questionable.

Regarding Rowling and misogyny, she does not speak out a lot against misogyny as such, but she does it through her characters. She does not treat her female characters differently from her male characters, and the fact that Hermione is a knowit all and still described as having more qualities - she's even desirable to Ron and Victor Krum - I think is rather unique. Women are usually either smart or attractive, very rarely both. Hermione is also not described as having her own failings and fears.

The same can be said for Ginny Weasley, where Rowling actually does stand up in a more obvious way against misogyny when Ginny is allowed to be really pissed off at her brother when he accuses her of being "loose" since she's had more than one boyfriend. You can also note that Harry is firmly on Ginnny's side here, although he does acknowledge his own jealousy.

EDITED: Coherency.

[Altherion]

He makes it possible for anybody vaguely competent to get to the stone. See my first post in this thread.

Anyone who doesn't want the stuff the stone would grant. I think people like that are quite rare.

Speaking as a high school student, how any reasonably intelligent adult can derive any pleasure from it is a mystery to me.

To paraphrase the Red Viper, the day I cannot enjoy a good story intended for children is the day I drown myself in a cask of red. Every story has flaws -- things that should have been done differently (according to the reader), characters that behave in ways the reader finds irrational and inconsistent with the rest of their actions, characters with less than 3 dimensions, outright plot holes and many oher things. Some have more of these, some have fewer, but the trick to enjoying stories is to learn to ignore them. You know they're there, but why focus on them?

[Mercury Poisoning]

@Lyanna

Heh. I am 29 years old with a MSc degree, which of course doesn't necessarily prove I am smarter or dumber than anyone else, but it does at least prove I can hold my own in most cases.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was trying to insult you. I just don't get how these books are so popular.

No, but it is far better than a total lack thereof.

Agreed.

I would say that Petunia has some redeeming qualities in her, perhaps yet to be seen. Dudley is a spoilt kid, who could have turned out better with a better upbringing.

Also, Umbridge works for the Ministry who are opposed to Voldemort. Hence, she can't be seen as 100% evil, although she despises Harry.

The fact that Dudley *could* have turned out differently is not really in question here. Sauron could have turned out differently, too, if he'd kept better company. As for Umbridge, the Ministry is a couple steps away from totalitarianism, so I don't really think your arguement holds weight. Just because she doesn't support killing everybody doesn't mean she has any redeeming qualities.

Can't recall that they were grey at all. What are you thinking of here?

The Nadrik king changes sides and joins Garion during the big battle near the end of the Belgariad and the Thull king is stupid, not evil. Zakath, the king of Malloria, joins Garion in his quest during the second series.

@Altherion

Anyone who doesn't want the stuff the stone would grant. I think people like that are quite rare.

Then what is the point of the rest of primary defenses?

o paraphrase the Red Viper, the day I cannot enjoy a good story intended for children is the day I drown myself in a cask of red. Every story has flaws -- things that should have been done differently (according to the reader), characters that behave in ways the reader finds irrational and inconsistent with the rest of their actions, characters with less than 3 dimensions, outright plot holes and many oher things. Some have more of these, some have fewer, but the trick to enjoying stories is to learn to ignore them. You know they're there, but why focus on them?

I still love a number of "stories intended for children," and keep them on my bookshelves. Rowling's problem is that she's inconsistent to the point that it's ludicrous.

EDIT: Also, I think all the praise has something to do with it. If these books weren't so constantly lauded for their percieved brilliance, I might be more tolerant of them.

[Altherion]

Then what is the point of the rest of primary defenses?

To slow people down, which they did.

I still love a number of "stories intended for children," and keep them on my bookshelves. Rowling's problem is that she's inconsistent to the point that it's ludicrous.

I disagree. It's consistent enough to be enjoyed. You just have to look at it from the proper perspective.

[Merentha]

My theory is that Harry is the final Horcrux, so gets himself killed (or kills himself) so Voldemort can die.

[Mallory]

I really do not understand why she decided to "announce" that two characters were going to die. It would have come as so much more of a surprise if she just hadn't said anything at all.

For what it is worth, i think it will be Ron and Draco

[Young Wolf]

Eddings...ugh.

[Ten Minute Timer]

Harry must die. How else will Neville find the necessary urgency to step up and be the true bane of Voldemort ?

[IceBlade]

My theory is that Harry is the final Horcrux, so gets himself killed (or kills himself) so Voldemort can die.

If that's the case I'm going to burn my book. Thinking of a less original ending might possibly kill me.

-Ice

[Gertrude]

The more I hear that Harry might die, the more I think that he probably wont.

My list for possible deaths: Snape, Hagrid, Draco

probably survives: Hermione, Ron, Neville

Other than that - who the hell knows. And I don't want to know damnit! Let it stay a surprise. Now when I'm reading, I'll be on the lookout for it and slightly anxious til I know. Why do I read things like this?

And I wouldn't be totally surprised if either Sirrius or Dumbledore survived, but I really think they are gone. I know a case can be made for Dumbledore, but I'm hoping he stays dead. (that's kind of an awful thing to say )

[Mr Smash]

I really do not understand why she decided to "announce" that two characters were going to die. It would have come as so much more of a surprise if she just hadn't said anything at all.

For what it is worth, i think it will be Ron and Draco

IIRC, she's been announcing that characters will die since book 4.

[Mich]

Announcing that a main character will die brings more publicity and debates like so. Keeps people entertained while she's still writing the finale

When she did this for OotP it drove me crazy with all her little 'teases' in the book about who it would be. Hopefully she doesn't do that again with the last one.

If any of the deaths are Snape I will never forgive her :cry:

[Gertrude]

The only way I will accept Snape's death is if he dies in an over the top heroic way that proves without a doubt that he was good all along and everyone mourns him and reveres him with the highest respect. Nothing less will do.